netdev - Re: Fix FRTO+NewReno problem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 13 May 2008 13:04:04 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fix FRTO+NewReno problem

On Tue, 13 May 2008, David Miller wrote:

> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:42:03 +0300 (EEST)
> 
> > On Mon, 12 May 2008, David Miller wrote:
> > 
> > > If I understand correctly, it is only non-SACK newreno case that can
> > > get the unnecessary retransmissions, right?  If so, it's not a big
> > > deal at all.
> > 
> > No, also SACK could get at least one quite easily if TCP has a small 
> > window, to get two of them with SACK one needs to have a stranger case
> > unless I missed something. If I just remove that forward transmission LOST 
> > marking avoidance unconditionally, it fixes that SACKFRTO window of 
> > failure too which was a pending thing to fix :-).
> 
> Ok.

Hmm, my paragraph was likely ambiguous. So unnecessary transmissions can 
occur with SACK with that change but another problem that would have 
required a fix went away with that change.

> > Btw, the first two fixes (workaround was not included) also fixed bugzilla 
> > #10063, I just got a confirmation about that as well.
> > 
> > I'll send the two patches still pending separately in a minute.
> 
> Thank you.

Forgot to mention earlier, these should go to stable too (but you 
probably figured that out anyway).

-- 
 i.